Markku Nordstrom writes in a comment:

I must confess I'm quite unfamiliar with the changing party demographics of the rest of the Nordic countries, outside of Finland. The Progressive Party of Carl I. Hagen sounds very interesting. I don't think there is anything like it in Sweden (certainly not in Finland), but does the party resemble the "Party of Pia" in Denmark? [..]

The main problem with Populism is that it doesn't fit in nicely in that arc from left-wing to right- wing that has defined European politics since the French Revolution. Populism is being defined by powerful personalities and thinkers, - i.e. popular people - instead of political party ideology.

Pym Fortuyn in Holland was an interesting Populist figure, and he would have been a credit to Europe, had he survived. It seems to me, - based on what Bjorn has been telling us - that Carl Hagen could be the one that can define the meaning of Populism, now that Pym is gone.

In any case, this is something new in Europe. Carl I. Hagen and Norwegian politics deserve to be closely studied, because there might be new trends in Europe that are being defined today at the edges of Europe, instead of the Franco-German "heart" of Europe.

I saw a Swedish TV debate on Iraq a few days ago. There were the usual airheads you'd expect in a Swedish TV debate on Iraq, but one politician impressed me: Lars Leijonborg, the leader of the Liberal People's Party. I didn't watch it all, but he seemed almost alone on that program in getting his priorities straight: The United States is not evil, Saddam Hussein is. If the UN has to use force to disarm him, that's sad but not wrong. (Apparently, he has even called for Swedish troops to take part in a UN-approved attack.)

In the Swedish election last fall, the popularity of the Liberal People's Party was seen as evidence that the Vast European Right-Wing Populist Movement had finally arrived in Sweden. They were branded by the established parties as right-wing populists usually are, ie. as racists and fearmongers. The odd thing was they're basically just a liberal party on the centre-right. All that made them "populistic" was a bit of fresh thinking and some uncommon common sense, (for instance on multiculturalism and integration.) There's not much about their views that should provoke anyone. I think it says a lot about Sweden that, by their standards, classical liberals are "right-wing populists".

The Danish People's Party is very different. It has certain aspects of American conservatism about it. They have a strong sense of patriotism, are very clear about Christianity being a central part of Danish culture, and feel warmly about individual freedom and law and order. They're also highly critical of the EU. On the issue of Muslim immigration, I think you can compare them to Oriana Fallaci. I've said before that Pia Kjærsgaard would feel at home as a bellicose blogger. She has a sharp pen and a good eye for the ridiculous effects of p.c.'ness.

If there's anything that bothers me about the Danish People's Party, it's a sense that deep down they're an angry party. I'm uneasy about angry parties. Maybe the Danes have more to be angry about, or maybe it's just a question of attitude. Of course, these are all just my impressions. I haven't followed these two parties closely, and just because I live in Norway doesn't mean I understand Denmark or Sweden. (The three Scandinavian countries are close enough to invite comparison, but don't let that fool you. It fools me all the time.)

Carl I Hagen and the Progress Party stand somewhere between these other two parties. They have secular libertarian roots, but also hold an appeal for conservative Christians. Hagen is more critical of immigration and Islam than Leijonborg, less than Kjærsgaard. They used to be more outspoken on immigration than they are now, though. Through several purges over the last ten years, Carl I Hagen rid the party of both its most principled libertarians and its wackiest anti-immigrationists and village idiots. At the time, this was seen as devastating for the party. The last crisis, a couple of years ago, ended their first period as the most popular party in Norway.

Now, all that is forgotten and forgiven. What remains is a very popular party (first or second, depending on the poll), with libertarian core principles, a sensible suspicion of multiculturalism, and a leadership with populist instincts. (The libertarianism has been somewhat diluted with social democracy and pragmatism. I'm not sure what to call the mix.) Like the Socialist Left, they have a strong and justified belief in their own grassroot credentials. And somewhere along the way, Hagen seems to have learned how to build a stable party organization, one that doesn't need to be regularly purged from above to function well. That's a vital step when going from a one-man's political list to a major, responsible party. The longer Hagen stays at the top, (he's been at it for 25 years), the better for the party, but it won't fall apart if he dies, like Pim Fortuyn's List did. I believe Siv Jensen will do a good job when she inevitably takes over. (Politically, I trust her more than Hagen, but she lacks some of his charisma. Then again, she's much prettier.)

A curious fact: Of all the times I've written about the Progress Party in this blog, I've never written the same thing twice, and I somehow always end up being more positive than the last time. I'm not sure what that means, but part of the reason that I can't settle on an opinion might be that I'm just about the only person I know of who writes regularly about this from the perspective that Norwegian right-wing populism might actually be a good thing. In the Norwegian media, the Progress Party is still analyzed as unprincipled manipulators and/or dangerous neo-libertarians, when they're analyzed at all. (Some former critics have become more silent, without offering any revised opinions.) Foreign media rarely mention them, of course. Haider, Le Pen, Fortuyn, Kjærsgaard - they're all more exciting examples of European right-wing populism than Hagen. So I might be stuck in my own personal feedback loop here, or I might just need some time to get it right on my own.

But Markku is right - this is part of an interesting political trend, and it deserves to be studied.

Bjorn, I find it interesting that a new poll today published in the English edition of Aftenposten shows fully 52% of the voters of the Progress Party in Norway want prime minister Bondevik to support the French and German efforts to avoid a war with Iraq.

In all other parties a far bigger percentage of the voters support France & Germany.

Maybe you need to start a new party for your far-right views?

Lirum: It's just like a Scandinavian anti-war weasel to oppose a war against fascist dictatorship.

Europeans are wholly hypocritical in denying Iraqis the only chance for democracy for several generations. Saddam murders more civilians in one year than a high-tech war ever would.

War can be a force for democracy. If you don't think so, then you don't understand the real meaning of World War 2.

Bjorn, Markku:
When I was in Norway, Hagen was beyond the pale for most people. I can imagine you get the same reaction now amongst broad sections of norsk society if you claim to support the war on terrorism or something equally heretical.
His support then (1997) was impressive, but still seen as the result of some inchoate protest - against the EU, social democracy, immigrants, fiscal discipline -everyone had a different theory about the grievance. I can imagine people are more willing to admit that he represents a segment of the electorate that had been without political representation now that there's some pan-European trend.
I guess one way to look at it is this: has his support broadened geographically? Is he winning more votes in urban areas, but not just the major immigrant neighborhoods in Oslo?
As for him being libertarian - that's a real stretch. If populism is an ill-fitting term, then libertarian or classical liberal is equally poor. If I remember correctly, Labour scored a big hit against Hagen by saying his plan to tap oil fund revenue to pay for various social programs (esp. care for the elderly) was fiscally irresponsible. He certainly didn't seem to have much trouble spending money...

Marc W.: Your comment is very interesting. Please keep on posting. I don't know much about Hagen, but I hope he's the beginning of something new in Europe...

All is not bleak in Europe:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-miniter022503.asp

Okay, the publication is an American conservative publication, but it's worthwhile reading (even for a former Democrat like myself).

Looks like Estonia is following the trend. Their Res Publica party sounds similar to the Progress Party of Norway:

http://www.balticblog.blogspot.com/2003_03_09_balticblog_archive.html#90429089

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/52